(19-08-2016 03:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: You should read the link, because you have made yourself look absolutely foolish by continuing to make a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

Here's a claim that is equivalent to yours: Rape victims have unambiguous moral protection, unless the rapist is a man. Those cases are excepted. That sounds really stupid, doesn't it? But it's not any stupider than your claim. If zygotes have "unambiguous" moral protection, why isn't every woman and every doctor who has ever been involved in an abortion in prison for murder? There's nothing silly about my claim. It's a plain fact. You can't claim a general rule and then say, "oh by the way, 99.9% of all instances of this are excepted from the rule". It's not a general rule then. So stop claiming that it is.

Did you bother to read the link? Federal Law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally kill the unborn.

(19-08-2016 03:21 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: Here's a claim that is equivalent to yours: Rape victims have unambiguous moral protection, unless the rapist is a man. Those cases are excepted. That sounds really stupid, doesn't it? But it's not any stupider than your claim. If zygotes have "unambiguous" moral protection, why isn't every woman and every doctor who has ever been involved in an abortion in prison for murder? There's nothing silly about my claim. It's a plain fact. You can't claim a general rule and then say, "oh by the way, 99.9% of all instances of this are excepted from the rule". It's not a general rule then. So stop claiming that it is.

Did you bother to read the link? Federal Law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally kill the unborn.

That isn't exactly 'unambiguous' protection, then, as abortion is legal and excepted from that bill.

(19-08-2016 03:21 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: Here's a claim that is equivalent to yours: Rape victims have unambiguous moral protection, unless the rapist is a man. Those cases are excepted. That sounds really stupid, doesn't it? But it's not any stupider than your claim. If zygotes have "unambiguous" moral protection, why isn't every woman and every doctor who has ever been involved in an abortion in prison for murder? There's nothing silly about my claim. It's a plain fact. You can't claim a general rule and then say, "oh by the way, 99.9% of all instances of this are excepted from the rule". It's not a general rule then. So stop claiming that it is.

Did you bother to read the link? Federal Law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally kill the unborn.

That is a content-free statement, and says nothing at all about the rights of the unborn. Federal law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally do anything whatsoever. You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The key word there is "illegally". The vast majority of cases of "killing the unborn" are perfectly legal, and those are the ones we're talking about. What little argument you have is completely irrelevant to this thread..

(19-08-2016 03:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: No, I didn't. Who is it that gives them (and all of them) moral protection? Certainly not the US legal code -- otherwise abortion would be absolutely illegal. If you are going to cite legal precedent (the Scott Peterson case) in defense of your position, I can cite legal precedent (Roe v Wade and thousands, if not millions, of legal abortions) in defense of mine. Zygotes are not "unambiguously" granted moral protection. This is a fact, not an opinion.

You should read the link, because you have made yourself look absolutely foolish by continuing to make a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

(19-08-2016 03:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Did you bother to read the link? Federal Law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally kill the unborn.

That is a content-free statement, and says nothing at all about the rights of the unborn. Federal law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally do anything whatsoever. You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The key word there is "illegally". The vast majority of cases of "killing the unborn" are perfectly legal, and those are the ones we're talking about. What little argument you have is completely irrelevant to this thread..

Please try to follow along.

Loom made this claim(the bolding is mine).

Quote:You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

Loom is claiming that moral protection isn't typically granted to the unborn. I refuted his claim by providing evidence that it is. Namely state and federal laws which make killing of the unborn illegal except in cases where the mother aborts.

A fetus is a human being. It is scientifically accepted to be a human being. It is legally accepted to be a human being. I have provided links showing both. You guys are just hoping your unsubstantiated assertions that a fetus is not a human being somehow sticks. It doesn't. The facts are simply too overwhelming.

(19-08-2016 03:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: That is a content-free statement, and says nothing at all about the rights of the unborn. Federal law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally do anything whatsoever. You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The key word there is "illegally". The vast majority of cases of "killing the unborn" are perfectly legal, and those are the ones we're talking about. What little argument you have is completely irrelevant to this thread..

Please try to follow along.

Loom made this claim(the bolding is mine).

Quote:You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

Loom is claiming that moral protection isn't typically granted to the unborn. I refuted his claim by providing evidence that it is. Namely state and federal laws which make killing of the unborn illegal except in cases where the mother aborts.

A fetus is a human being. It is scientifically accepted to be a human being. It is legally accepted to be a human being. I have provided links showing both. You guys are just hoping your unsubstantiated assertions that a fetus is not a human being somehow sticks. It doesn't. The facts are simply too overwhelming.

A fetus is not "A" human being. It is not autonomous. You have not provided a definition, dumbass. It cannot live apart from it's mother. Therefore, whatever it is, it's a class apart from your feeble attempt to assert what it is. It is not granted legal person-hood. A clump of cells with no brain and no neural tube possesses nothing that a "human being" is defined to be, and you fucking know it. It's a POTENTIAL human being. You can provide NO legal and scientific (unbiased) references that substantiate your stupid lies. Go fuck your priest, and tell him you failed again. What's overwhelming is your bias and ignorance of science and the law.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(19-08-2016 03:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: That is a content-free statement, and says nothing at all about the rights of the unborn. Federal law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally do anything whatsoever. You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The key word there is "illegally". The vast majority of cases of "killing the unborn" are perfectly legal, and those are the ones we're talking about. What little argument you have is completely irrelevant to this thread..

Please try to follow along.

Loom made this claim(the bolding is mine).

Quote:You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

Loom is claiming that moral protection isn't typically granted to the unborn. I refuted his claim by providing evidence that it is. Namely state and federal laws which make killing of the unborn illegal except in cases where the mother aborts.

A fetus is a human being. It is scientifically accepted to be a human being. It is legally accepted to be a human being. I have provided links showing both. You guys are just hoping your unsubstantiated assertions that a fetus is not a human being somehow sticks. It doesn't. The facts are simply too overwhelming.

When I said 'cluster of self-replicating cells,' I was referring to a zygote, not a foetus (which is a bit more complex.) Apologies for any confusion.

I disagree on calling a zygote/foetus a human being. There is no doubt that they are part of the human species, but they are properly referred to as human zygotes/foetuses.

A human being is typically defined as a person. A man, woman, or child. An established individual. Not a cluster of human cells or a potential human.

You are the only one here assigning such a loaded term to zygotes/foetuses. Much like the use of unborn child/baby.

(17-08-2016 07:32 PM)Aliza Wrote: The pro-cruelty movement that you belong to wants to force women to carry sick, diseased or unwanted embryos to term, yet they offer no long term care for those babies, thus forcing them to live a life of misery, poverty and under privilege. I’m not entirely sure how you sleep at night, but this seems to be the will of folks down in the pro-cruelty camp. As a cruel individual yourself, you want to force your will onto people who want to be humane and considerate to the human population by giving each and every person a fair shake at a successful and happy life. What you’re doing is nothing short of disgusting. It’s child abuse, and you should be thrown in jail for forcing a child to go through life with severe medical problems and no hope of a good quality of life.

The people of Texas are not being forced to have abortions themselves. They’re just not being allowed to force their will onto other people.

Oh, and an embryo isn’t a human. As a religious person, I’m saying it doesn’t have a soul. By not destroying a sick, diseased fetus, you’re forcing a soul into a faulty body when it could have otherwise gone into a healthy body.

I sleep well. I don't conflate issues like you seem to be doing here.. Whether or not prolifers are willing to care for unwanted and or disabled babies has no relevance to the question of is it right or wrong to kill those babies in the womb.

Also the vast majority of babies that are aborted are perfectly healthy.

Zygotes are not babies.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I don’t agree with your views on when a fetus takes on the title of human. The emotionally driven pleas you have presented have failed to convince anyone to adopt your perspective and you will continue to fail in your efforts because your tactics have already proven to be ineffective and you cannot seem to adapt and try new angles.

I do not view personhood as beginning until a fetus is actually free from the mother’s body. I also do not accept that life begins at conception. Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant and frankly, even if you provided me with a new definition of when life begins, I would still believe that abortion should be legal.

Let me repeat myself: I support abortion. I will not change my mind regardless of your personal feelings because the things you have been saying do not “speak” to me. Furthermore, the law is on my side so what you say bears no impact on my ability to have an abortion. Your opinion of the law and what I believe bears no weight on anything that affects me.

(19-08-2016 03:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: That is a content-free statement, and says nothing at all about the rights of the unborn. Federal law allows for the prosecution of people who illegally do anything whatsoever. You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The key word there is "illegally". The vast majority of cases of "killing the unborn" are perfectly legal, and those are the ones we're talking about. What little argument you have is completely irrelevant to this thread..

Please try to follow along.

Loom made this claim(the bolding is mine).

Quote:You are the one arguing that a cluster of self-replicating cells is a human being that is deserving of protections typically extended only to established 'persons.'

Loom is claiming that moral protection isn't typically granted to the unborn. I refuted his claim by providing evidence that it is. Namely state and federal laws which make killing of the unborn illegal except in cases where the mother aborts.

A fetus is a human being. It is scientifically accepted to be a human being. It is legally accepted to be a human being. I have provided links showing both. You guys are just hoping your unsubstantiated assertions that a fetus is not a human being somehow sticks. It doesn't. The facts are simply too overwhelming.

Again, are you willing to take a scope to the logical reasoning of legality? You skirt any questions or thread posts about ever taking a view of things as a form beyond yourself. You know things human beings grow to be capable of and learn by.

What is the value and reasoning in punishing a person harming a fetus? Is it the same moral or legal punishment as murder of a human child? Why or why not? Is it even in religious connotations the same for instance in the bible?

Is there reasoning that the pregnant woman has a control, almost property like, in the development of the fetus? Does that have a say in legal standing of why her body and then fetus being harmed may increase a rate of crime.

Why would, in a imagined for you scenario where a fetus isn't a human, would it not still make sense to add more criminal punishment to the harm or death of a pregnant woman's fetus? How would that legally be just?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson